A Militia is good for providing tax free assistance to the local Sheriff in a constitutional manner, To assist in emergencies such as down in NOLA after Hurricane Katrina, to be the defense in times of invasion.
And as for why people are afraid of it, is I believe people have over the years conditioned to believe that Militia's are those belligerent, near psychotic people that overthrow governments at the drop of a hat.Contrary to belief, they who are in the Militia are bound by an oath, a verbal contract, to protect the constitution by example, persuasion, and force of arms if necessary.

What fear? It's estimated in my town their are 1-5 guns per house (and a few of us know how to blow $^!+ up), yet day to day every man and woman continues on their daily business, we go shopping, buy gas, liquor, eat at Carl's Jr.
Where's the panic? Where's the rioting and general chaos? None here.

So is that the same kind of Militia that Vernon Howell, aka David Koresh, had raised for himself with his armed followers, in order for him to protect his constitutional rights and freedoms "by example, persuasion, and force of arms if necessary"?

Therefore I ask, what constitutes Vernon Howell, aka David Koresh, his rights and freedoms of resisting his search warrant only with force of arms(which resulted in the death of 6 of his followers and 4 AFT agents)? Without him and his followers given any reason for the government officials not to conduct the search, in the form of examples and persuasions that he did not in fact was conducting polygamy and statutory rape of women and children. After all, he was accused of such acts of state violation even by his own followers, and the only way to clear his accusations isn't with guns. But with an official government investigation.

A Militia is good for providing tax free assistance to the local Sheriff in a constitutional manner, To assist in emergencies such as down in NOLA after Hurricane Katrina, to be the defense in times of invasion.
And as for why people are afraid of it, is I believe people have over the years conditioned to believe that Militia's are those belligerent, near psychotic people that overthrow governments at the drop of a hat.Contrary to belief, they who are in the Militia are bound by an oath, a verbal contract, to protect the constitution by example, persuasion, and force of arms if necessary.

What fear? It's estimated in my town their are 1-5 guns per house (and a few of us know how to blow $^!+ up), yet day to day every man and woman continues on their daily business, we go shopping, buy gas, liquor, eat at Carl's Jr.
Where's the panic? Where's the rioting and general chaos? None here.

So is that the same kind of Militia that Vernon Howell, aka David Koresh, had raised for himself with his armed followers, in order for him to protect his constitutional rights and freedoms "by example, persuasion, and force of arms if necessary"?

Therefore I ask, what constitutes Vernon Howell, aka David Koresh, his rights and freedoms of resisting his search warrant only with force of arms(which resulted in the death of 6 of his followers and 4 AFT agents)? Without him and his followers given any reason for the government officials not to conduct the search, in the form of examples and persuasions that he did not in fact was conducting polygamy and statutory rape of women and children. After all, he was accused of such acts of state violation even by his own followers, and the only way to clear his accusations isn't with guns. But with an official government investigation.

What David had was in a seance an unorganized Militia, but nonetheless a Militia. And he didn't raise them for himself. They were people who voluntarily decided to follow his teachings. (Part of that 1st Amendment thing. Peaceful Assembly, Freedom of Association, Freedom of Religion)
As for Polygamy it's a victimless crime. Certainly not a good example, but nonetheless victimless. Doesn't hurt my feelings.
Statutory rape of women and children.... Was this statement declared by the same people who willfully lied to congress?
Well in Texas under Common Law a 14 year old girl can marry with parental consent. I may not agree to this, but that's their business.
Also a plane circling the compound was armed with an infrared camera. (an early version, where cold/cool are shown as black and white is hot.)
Dick Rogers, a former FBI hostage rescue team commander said....
"I'll remind the American people one more time during that entire time in 6 hours and indeed those 51 days the FBI never fired one shot at the Dividians"
However the thermal camera at the time caught short bursts of white hot bursts on the dirt area beside a tank firing into the Dividian compound.
If they lied here, what makes you believe that told the truth all the other times?

Weapon-01wrote:What David had was in a seance an unorganized Militia, but nonetheless a Militia. And he didn't raise them for himself. They were people who voluntarily decided to follow his teachings. (Part of that 1st Amendment thing. Peaceful Assembly, Freedom of Association, Freedom of Religion)As for Polygamy it's a victimless crime. Certainly not a good example, but nonetheless victimless. Doesn't hurt my feelings.
Statutory rape of women and children.... Was this statement declared by the same people who willfully lied to congress?
Well in Texas under Common Law a 14 year old girl can marry with parental consent. I may not agree to this, but that's their business.
Also a plane circling the compound was armed with an infrared camera. (an early version, where cold/cool are shown as black and white is hot.)
Dick Rogers, a former FBI hostage rescue team commander said....
"I'll remind the American people one more time during that entire time in 6 hours and indeed those 51 days the FBI never fired one shot at the Dividians"
However the thermal camera at the time caught short bursts of white hot bursts on the dirt area beside a tank firing into the Dividian compound.
If they lied here, what makes you believe that told the truth all the other times?

You know what, just forget about everything I just said. Because apparently you're so selfish when it comes to you and your guns, you don't care about your ethic and morality, not to mention your humanity for that matter.

I'm not sure letting everyone in the country own guns for "self-defense" is worth the problems that come with that. For example, in Bowling for Columbine, the really stupid story that bothered me was the little boy taking a gun to kindergarten and accidentally killing a little girl. And of course Columbine, apparently it's not too difficult for two teenage boys to get their hands on some machine guns so they can easily go on a killing spree.

In October 1992, in Louisiana, a Japanese exchange student named Yoshihiro Hattori went into the wrong house on the way to a Halloween party. The homeowner's wife screamed for help and the homeowner drew his .44 pistol and yelled for the student to 'freeze!' Not understanding the American idiom that 'freeze!' means 'Don't move or I'll shoot', the student continued advancing towards the homeowner. The homeowner pulled the trigger and shot him dead.[1] While the incident initially attracted only brief attention in the national American press, the shooting horrified Japan; hundreds of thousands of Japanese have signed petitions calling for the United States to implement gun prohibition, and Hattori's parents have announced plans to begin working with the American lobby, Handgun Control Inc.[2]

Tokyo is the safest major city in the world. Only 59,000 licensed gun owners live in Tokyo.[25] Per one million inhabitants, Tokyo has 40 reported muggings a year; New York has 11,000.[26] The handgun murder rate is at least 200 times higher in America than Japan.[27] The official homicide rate in Japan in 1988 was 1.2 homicide cases per 100,000 population, while in America it was 8.4 homocide cases per 100,000.[28]

Robbery is almost as rare as murder. Indeed, armed robbery and murder are both so rare that they usually make the national news, regardless of where they occur.[29] Japan's robbery rate is 1.4 per 100,000 inhabitants. The reported American rate is 220.9.[30] People walk anywhere in Japan at night, and carry large sums of cash.[31]

There's no comparison between Japan and the US when it comes to muggings, murder and armed robbery, so Japan must be doing something better than the US.

There's no comparison between Japan and the US when it comes to muggings, murder and armed robbery, so Japan must be doing something better than the US

ill actually agree with this statement, but because of the difference in culture.

1st of all american crime statistics are completly unreliable and false. Policemen make them up to satsify thier own political needs, and the FBI doesnt check behind them. (trust me, two of my criminal justice teachers confirmed this, both were policemen)

2nd of all America is one of the FEW countries in the world to keep vast amounts of crime statisics in the first place. And if Japan's criminal justice system is anything like america's system, then im sure thier statistics are crap as well.

i personaly think americans arent responsible enough to handle guns. We r confused and brainwashed by our media and false crime statistics. We r too eager to shoot and ask quesion's later. If some small japanese boy is walking toward u and your scare, fight him off. There is no need to shoot every stranger because your too much of a pussy to punch a dude in the jaw, or take a punch, but i better stop now b4 i get into my anti american speech peace over war

1 reason why most people shouldn't have guns.
- They're too ignorant to be trusted with them.

This is along the lines of what some of you said but the real problem here is that people aren't growing up to be morally just. Most are just looking out for themselves instead of thinking about something like the greater good.

Weapon-01wrote:What David had was in a seance an unorganized Militia, but nonetheless a Militia. And he didn't raise them for himself. They were people who voluntarily decided to follow his teachings. (Part of that 1st Amendment thing. Peaceful Assembly, Freedom of Association, Freedom of Religion)As for Polygamy it's a victimless crime. Certainly not a good example, but nonetheless victimless. Doesn't hurt my feelings.
Statutory rape of women and children.... Was this statement declared by the same people who willfully lied to congress?
Well in Texas under Common Law a 14 year old girl can marry with parental consent. I may not agree to this, but that's their business.
Also a plane circling the compound was armed with an infrared camera. (an early version, where cold/cool are shown as black and white is hot.)
Dick Rogers, a former FBI hostage rescue team commander said....
"I'll remind the American people one more time during that entire time in 6 hours and indeed those 51 days the FBI never fired one shot at the Dividians"
However the thermal camera at the time caught short bursts of white hot bursts on the dirt area beside a tank firing into the Dividian compound.
If they lied here, what makes you believe that told the truth all the other times?

You know what, just forget about everything I just said. Because apparently you're so selfish when it comes to you and your guns, you don't care about your ethic and morality, not to mention your humanity for that matter.

woah woah woah, hold on, is that your way of saying u lost the debate? srry to intrude, truthfully speaking, i dont aggree with either of you, but lets get some facts straight.

millias have thier uses, both good and bad. Dont bring other countries into this because they have a different history and culture. polygomy, prostitution, gambling, drugs, statutory rape are all victumless crimes by legal definition PERIOD. its in the text books. no real victims. dont let the words fool you they r just labels, and dont ever mix morality and law together, it makes a dangerous combination.

your debate has nothing to do about ethics, morals, or selfishness. i have to go, ill edit this when i get back..peace over war

DomFortresswrote:You know what, just forget about everything I just said. Because apparently you're so selfish when it comes to you and your guns, you don't care about your ethic and morality, not to mention your humanity for that matter.

woah woah woah, hold on, is that your way of saying u lost the debate? srry to intrude, truthfully speaking, i dont aggree with either of you, but lets get some facts straight.

millias have thier uses, both good and bad. Dont bring other countries into this because they have a different history and culture. polygomy, prostitution, gambling, drugs, statutory rape are all victumless crimes by legal definition PERIOD. its in the text books. no real victims. dont let the words fool you they r just labels, and dont ever mix morality and law together, it makes a dangerous combination.

your debate has nothing to do about ethics, morals, or selfishness. i have to go, ill edit this when i get back..peace over war

Tell that to the people who got their lives ruined, due "militias" raised by some minorities who wanted to defend their constitutional rights of committing these so called "victimless crimes"(http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Victimless+Crimes) such as polygamy, prostitution, gambling, drugs, and statutory rape on their private compounds.

And you're right, "it's in the text books." Therefore who are you to say that "dont let the words fool you they r just labels"?

My selfish argument is based on what I want the laws to advocate that's the greater good, based on human values defined by our ethics and morals.

DomFortresswrote:You know what, just forget about everything I just said. Because apparently you're so selfish when it comes to you and your guns, you don't care about your ethic and morality, not to mention your humanity for that matter.

woah woah woah, hold on, is that your way of saying u lost the debate? srry to intrude, truthfully speaking, i dont aggree with either of you, but lets get some facts straight.

millias have thier uses, both good and bad. Dont bring other countries into this because they have a different history and culture. polygomy, prostitution, gambling, drugs, statutory rape are all victumless crimes by legal definition PERIOD. its in the text books. no real victims. dont let the words fool you they r just labels, and dont ever mix morality and law together, it makes a dangerous combination.

your debate has nothing to do about ethics, morals, or selfishness. i have to go, ill edit this when i get back..peace over war

Tell that to the people who got their lives ruined, due "militias" raised by some minorities who wanted to defend their constitutional rights of committing these so called "victimless crimes"(http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Victimless+Crimes) such as polygamy, prostitution, gambling, drugs, and statutory rape on their private compounds.

And you're right, "it's in the text books." Therefore who are you to say that "dont let the words fool you they r just labels"?

My selfish argument is based on what I want the laws to advocate that's the greater good, based on human values defined by our ethics and morals.

Tell that to the people who got their lives ruined, due "militias" raised by some minorities who wanted to defend their constitutional rights of committing these so called "victimless crimes"(http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Victimless+Crimes) such as polygamy, prostitution, gambling, drugs, and statutory rape on their private compounds.

now lisen here, we cant go on some philosophical rant, redefining victim and crime and cursing the justice system and all that jazz, that goes way off topic. so define victimless crime as u want. but let me say one paragraph.

Other critics complain that there is no such thing as a victimless crime; whenever one of these crimes is committed but goes unpunished, individual mores, societal values, and the Rule of Law are undermined or compromised, rendering society itself the victim. http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Victimless+Crimes

crimes go unpunished all of the time. the rule of law has been undermined, compromised, and changed since the beggining of time.If society is the victim, then so be it, we r all victims of this world and it's ways. Too bad in the criminal justice system that wont fly. its impossible to enforce all of the laws all of the time anyway. Policemen do selective enforcement- enforcing what they want to.And they chose not to enforce polygamy, prostitution, gambling, drugs, and statutory rape most of the time.

As for militias commiting crimes- boo hoo, shit happens. r you arguing we shouldnt have militias because they commit crimes?

My selfish argument is based on what I want the laws to advocate that's the greater good, based on human values defined by our ethics and morals

that's impossible. there r so many definitions of what's moral and ethical to be put in a law. and when it does become a law, it leads to contriversy that leads to more bad than good.
law and morals dont mix. And if u want the law to represent only one moral or ethic, then go to a dictatorship- the only kind of government that isnt confusing and it works.

laws need to be based on reason and logic. There are too many double and triple standards in my country to do otherwise. laws based on morals are not logical, understandable, or even enforcable most of the time.Which is why "the Rule of Law are undermined or compromised"-http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Victimless+Crimes

Edit; ok, i have read and reread this entire thread, i understand your position 100% completly on this issue. And i actually would agree if it were realistic.If 100% of all guns could just disappear, the world would be more peaceful. Simply because people have to work a little harder for thier murders. And im a martial artist my self, so i love the idea of self defense with unarmed combat.

and realisticly speaking, many fights end with just one punch to the face or kick to the groin. there r no need for guns in many confratations. but in the real world, criminals couldnt care less what gun laws r in place, or restrictions on gun. thier going to get and have thier guns if they have to go to another country to get them. Though u may live with dieing by the bullet of a gun, what about the man or woman who has a family to protect? their life is not only thiers alone, but they must at least live for thier children.

that is what the thread starter is trying to say. the best way to fight against a gun is with another gun. there is no practicle boxing/judo/juijitsu/ taekwondo technique that can effectivly defend against a gun.And when your life and your families life is at stake, u dont get a choice in chosing how your going to die, u get to choice in chosing how to live and protect your family. isnt that moral? and ethical? i dont think he lacks morals and ethics.

like the thread starter said, there r many steps that should be used b4 u take out the gun, hand to hand combat was one of them. peace over war

JJT2wrote:
Edit; ok, i have read and reread this entire thread, i understand your position 100% completly on this issue. And i actually would agree if it were realistic.If 100% of all guns could just disappear, the world would be more peaceful. Simply because people have to work a little harder for thier murders. And im a martial artist my self, so i love the idea of self defense with unarmed combat.

and realisticly speaking, many fights end with just one punch to the face or kick to the groin. there r no need for guns in many confratations. but in the real world, criminals couldnt care less what gun laws r in place, or restrictions on gun. thier going to get and have thier guns if they have to go to another country to get them. Though u may live with dieing by the bullet of a gun, what about the man or woman who has a family to protect? their life is not only thiers alone, but they must at least live for thier children.

that is what the thread starter is trying to say. the best way to fight against a gun is with another gun. there is no practicle boxing/judo/juijitsu/ taekwondo technique that can effectivly defend against a gun.And when your life and your families life is at stake, u dont get a choice in chosing how your going to die, u get to choice in chosing how to live and protect your family. isnt that moral? and ethical? i dont think he lacks morals and ethics.

like the thread starter said, there r many steps that should be used b4 u take out the gun, hand to hand combat was one of them. peace over war

If you just look at the history of weapon development, firearms like handguns, rifles, and machine guns are all classified as conventional weapons. They are different than tactical weapons like high tech weaponry such as rockets, missiles, landmines and bombs that are designed to destroy. Or genocidal weapons like N.B.C.(Nuclear, Biological, Chemical) weaponry that are designed to annihilate. Firearms are "conventional" in the sense that they are designed for a single purpose; to kill.

From one martial artist to another, you and I share a mutual understanding that martial arts have evolved into nonlethal competitions and recreational sports. This is to be expected when martial artists respect their own individual humanities, through their own unique disciplines and philosophical approaches on a lifetime dedication of perfecting their skills. Our own bodies thus became our tools to express our own humanities, as we skillfully master our own body motions.

However, as long as there are people who must kill their fellow men in order for them to survive, a gun will serve that purpose. And as long as there are those who want to install other people the fear of death by killing, so must a gun demonstrates itself with live sacrifices. Therefore in order to justify our need to bare firearms, we must also justify the purposes of turning our guns to our fellow men. And the thread starter did so using the best example possible; he used a killer's purpose to bare arms to justify his owns.